I was curious as to why they lost the Vietnam war even with direct military involvement by the USA.

What if any progress has been made recently in our understanding of the Late Bronze Age Collapse in the Mediterranean and Asia Minor regions? What are the most promising paths to progress for historians in this field today? Or do you think we're going to be stuck for some time with our fairly sketchy understanding until a monumental breakthrough occurs, if it ever does?

And what reading material would you recommend on the collapse to an advanced reader who is not a trained historian? I'm not afraid of long books or big words! I recently finished Gibbon's Decline and Fall (yes I know it's not all accepted as fact, and situated much later!) and I'm looking for more great ancient Mediterranean history reads.

I just came across that fascinating tidbit of history whilst writing my final papers for a foreign policy course. Anyhow, I understand Ho Chi Minh (tried?) to meet with Woodrow Wilson and hoped to meet with other democratic big dogs with certain goals for his people in Indochina/Vietnam. Can someone explain the evolution of this timeline between then and the Vietnam War? How did he get to hope to meet with these guys? What sort of effect can it be traced back to the Vietnam War? Did he reconcile? I recognize I'm all over the place, I'm just trying to get some interpretive perspective on this seemingly pretty important fact!

I've seen a lot of hype about the Gospel of Barnabas in the last 24 hours or so, but the "facts" aren't even remotely congruent. As far as I knew it was wrote in the 16th century (or at least ~400-600 years ago), and everyone is excitedly claiming now that it's ~1500-2000 years old. Tell me if this is the wrong place and I'll move it, but I want to know what really happened HISTORICALLY with the Gospel instead of biased religious opinions and theorising that I've seen so much of today. When was it really wrote, as far as scholars know? By whom? What does it actually really claim? What are the details surrounding it?

I'd like to request specifically for as many sources as possible because of the apparent disconnect between what online blogs and media is trying to hype up and what is actually known for solid fact/academia about this book.

EDIT // Aside from who wrote it, where it was wrote, and when, I also forgot to mention that I heard it was originally wrote in Spanish (and Italian?) but then elsewhere insisted it was wrote in a dialect of Aramaic. Even further through the net someone went so far as to claim that it was actually wrote in gold, and I'm not even entirely sure how that's possible.

TL;DR: Can anyone explain the historical background to this text without contradicting themselves in the next 30 words or less like the media output is?

Particularly with information on the state of the language through the 19th century, what're some good books? I'm interested in its decline and causes of decline in Ireland at the time, as well as its attempted revival.

It seems to me that since WWII, most of the Anglosphere have acted almost identically diplomatically. They also all share a language and have similar cultures. It seems to me it would be pretty wise for them to join up and form a sort of consensual empire.

As China has continued to grow in economic power and military confidence, it has slowly been testing its neighbors and expanding its area of influence. The South China Sea has multiple claimants who all argue that their traditional, historic boundaries offer them some sovereignty over the waters. China, in particular, claims almost all of the entire area in question. When exactly did it have control over this particular area? Which country could actually claim to have "first dibs" on the sea?

I heard that the patriciers organised games in their honor but did this mean that they payed for it all. Or was there a ticket fee or something? I know the question is a bit vague but I just don't get how the whole idea of the gigantic Colosseum worked.

This was a difficult question to phrase - but what I'm curious about is: did Asian culture, Middle Eastern culture, European culture, African culture, Mesoamerican culture, etc, generally organize their social hierarchies, agricultural practices, government structures, scholarship, and so on, in similar ways? And if so, was it through trial and error that each came to similar practices that were, in those time periods, the most efficient systems, or through subtle cultural exchange? Or are the similarities I frequently notice in histories of these cultures a product of retroactive attempts by western scholars to provide a western analog to their ostensibly western audience?

also what was Erich Mielke like? from what i have gathered he was ambitious, sociopathic and very meticulous. any other interesting facts about the stasi and their scope would be greatly appreciated.

In the US that is.

I'm primarily concerned with the Western front. I have read that most of the standing and mobilized armies in Europe were extremely worn down by just the first couple of months, and that they fairly quickly had to call in badly trained reserves.

But, I have also read that soldiers were much more likely to die at the start of their assignment to the front, i.e. when they were green, than later.

So, how many soldiers of the armies that were used in the initial assaults actually survived the entire war? Did most die and were just continually replaced or what?

And what is the earliest time historians can be sure that basic songs existed, even if they can't be replicated?

*Additionally, what are some early music notation systems from throughout the world?

To what extent did Ford’s practices revolutionise industrial manufacturing? I heard he did a lot of "weird" and contradictory practises, such as hiring investigators to invade the privacy of his workers and having police monitor the workers and give punishments for slow and bad work. How did these things impact industrial manufacturing? Were they beneficial?

I'm assuming they couldn't have flown over France, so did they fly over Austria to Italy then to Spain? Or did they fly "around" France? (English Channel to bay of biscay)

I mean things like bulb image in pyramids and so on. Or they just ignore it?

The medieval fantasy genre has a very broad list of tropes that are unlikely to be all correct. Of the following list, which have basis in medieval European history, and which are completely fictitious?

1. Were there real Spymasters in the courts of Medieval European monarchs?

• Would squires follow knights around, or just be seen as grooms to help with armor and mounting?
• Would armored knights ever fight off horseback?
• Were brothels as common as in George R. R. Martin and Terry Prachett's books?
• Would most people in very rural agrarian populations be aware of who the king was, and what he was like?
• Were blades ever poisoned?
• Did public inns or taverns exist in 11th-14th-century Western Europe?
• Would the chancellor and "master of coin" be trained diplomats and economists, or would these positions have just been filled by associates or friends of the monarch?
• Would two monarchs ever meet together to discuss a battle they would soon fight?
• Were dynastic ties as significant, and as explicitly bound to marriage, as A Song of Ice and Fire and the video game Crusader Kings 2 suggest?
• Were dungeons real?
• Would torture have been performed by soldiers, or were there professional torturers? How would they learn their craft?
• Would most monarchs have jesters and singers permanently at court?
• On that note, were jesters truly the only people able to securely criticize a monarch?
• Who would courtiers be, usually?
• How would kings earn money and support themselves in the high and late middle ages?
• Would most births be performed by a midwife or just whoever was nearby?
• Were extremely high civilian casualties a common characteristic of medieval warfare, outside of starvation during sieges?
• How common were battles, in comparison to sieges?
• In England and France, at least, who held the power: the monarch or the nobility? Was most decision-making and ruling done by the king or the various lords?

Apologies if this violates any rules of this subreddit.

What kind of person became a mercenary in 15th and 16th century Europe? Why and how did they become one? How did they find work? How did mercenary companies find work?